The European Commission had indicated it wanted to make official its proposal to slash Europe's planet warming emissions by 90 percent within the next 15 years in the first quarter of 2025.
But it has so far failed to do so -- to the worry of green groups and lawmakers, who fear the target might fall victim to Brussels' new push to revamp the bloc's economic competitiveness.
"Clearly we need a bit more time," Wopke Hoekstra, the EU's climate commissioner told a press briefing, adding that talks continued with member states and the European Parliament.
"We're still full of ambition, and I hope, and I'm confident, that I will have secured a landing zone before summer".
The 90 percent reduction in net greenhouse gas emissions relative to 1990 is considered a stepping stone towards the EU's broader goal to reach climate neutrality by 2050.
The latter is at the heart of the European Green Deal, a landmark package of measures that defined commission chief Ursula von der Leyen's first term in office but has since come increasingly under fire.
Right and hard-right gains across Europe and the return of Donald Trump to the White House have focused Brussels' attention on defence and competitiveness -- which critics of climate action say is hindered by green rules.
Some countries, such as the Czech Republic, see the 90 percent goal as unattainable.
Italy has suggested it be lowered to 80 or 85 percent, while France warned Brussels should refrain from setting targets without detailing how to meet them.
On Thursday, Hoekstra expressed optimism that the target would not be lowered -- saying that 90 percent was his "goal" -- but did not rule out changes.
"That clearly is our starting point," he said, adding that however "we will need some pragmatism in how to get there".
"We need to make sure that the transition, the transformation we embark on, is also an asset rather than a liability in terms of competitiveness".
Experts warn 'AI-written' paper is latest spin on climate change denial
Washington (AFP) April 4, 2025 -
Climate change deniers are pushing an AI-generated paper questioning human-induced warming, leading experts to warn against the rise of research that is inherently flawed but marketed as neutral and scrupulously logical.
The paper rejects climate models on human-induced global warming and has been widely cited on social media as being the first "peer-reviewed" research led by artificial intelligence (AI) on the topic.
Titled "A Critical Reassessment of the Anthropogenic CO2-Global Warming Hypothesis," it contains references contested by the scientific community, according to experts interviewed by AFP.
Computational and ethics researchers also cautioned against claims of neutrality in papers that use AI as an author.
The new study -- which claims to be entirely written by Elon Musk's Grok 3 AI -- has gained traction online, with a blog post by Covid-19 contrarian Robert Malone promoting it gathering more than a million views.
"After the debacle of man-made climate change and the corruption of evidence-based medicine by big pharma, the use of AI for government-funded research will become normalized, and standards will be developed for its use in peer-reviewed journals," Malone wrote.
There is overwhelming scientific consensus linking fossil fuel combustion to rising global temperatures and increasingly severe weather disasters.
- Illusion of objectivity -
Academics have warned that the surge of AI in research, despite potential benefits, risks triggering an illusion of objectivity and insight in scientific research.
"Large language models do not have the capacity to reason. They are statistical models predicting future words or phrases based on what they have been trained on. This is not research," argued Mark Neff, an environmental sciences professor.
The paper says Grok 3 "wrote the entire manuscript," with input from co-authors who "played a crucial role in guiding its development."
Among the co-authors was astrophysicist Willie Soon -- a climate contrarian known to have received more than a million dollars in funding from the fossil fuel industry over the years.
Scientifically contested papers by physicist Hermann Harde and Soon himself were used as references for the AI's analysis.
Microbiologist Elisabeth Bik, who tracks scientific malpractice, remarked the paper did not describe how it was written: "It includes datasets that formed the basis of the paper, but no prompts," she noted. "We know nothing about how the authors asked the AI to analyze the data."
Ashwinee Panda, a postdoctoral fellow on AI safety at the University of Maryland, said the claim that Grok 3 wrote the paper created a veneer of objectivity that was unverifiable.
"Anyone could just claim 'I didn't write this, the AI did, so this is unbiased' without evidence," he said.
- Opaque review process -
Neither the journal nor its publisher -- which seems to publish only one journal -- appear to be members of the Committee of Publication Ethics.
The paper acknowledges "the careful edits provided by a reviewer and the editor-in-chief," identified on its website as Harde.
It does not specify whether it underwent open, single-, or double-blind review and was submitted and published within just 12 days.
"That an AI would effectively plagiarize nonsense papers," does not come as a surprise to NASA's top climate scientist Gavin Schmidt, but "this retread has just as little credibility," he told AFP.
AFP reached out to the authors of the paper for further comment on the review process, but did not receive an immediate response.
"The use of AI is just the latest ploy, to make this seem as if it is a new argument, rather than an old, false one," Naomi Oreskes, a science historian at Harvard University, told AFP.
| Subscribe Free To Our Daily Newsletters |
| Subscribe Free To Our Daily Newsletters |
